1. This revision petition is directed against the order of the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula (''the State Commission'') dated 24.07.2013 whereby the State Commission reversed the order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Karnal and dismissed the complaint.
2. Briefly, stated the undisputed facts for the disposal of the revision petition are that the complainant had obtained an insurance policy for vehicle no. HR 10-N-0451 with IDV Rs.6,25,000/-. The case of the complainant is that during the currency of the insurance policy, the said vehicle was stolen, police was informed. Intimation was sent to the insurance company but the insurance company repudiated the claim. Being aggrieved by the repudiation, the petitioner raised a consumer dispute by filing a consumer complaint before the District Forum, Karnal.
3. The respondent/ opposite party on being served with the notice of the complaint, filed written statement and justified the repudiation on the ground that the complainant despite the specific stipulation in the insurance contract had failed to immediately report the theft to the insurance company. According to the opposite party, intimation of theft in writing was received on 09.02.2011, whereas the alleged theft took place on 09.01.2011.
4. The District Forum on consideration of pleadings and evidence concluded that there was a delay in intimating the insurance company about the theft despite that the District Forum went on to allow the complaint on non-standard basis relying upon the judgment of this Commission in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd., vs Munni Lal Yadav ? 11 (2001 ) CPJ 53 (NC) decided on 11.04.2001.
5. Being aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, the respondent/ opposite party approached the State Commission in appeal. The State Commission vide impugned order confirmed the finding of the District Forum regarding late intimation of theft given by the complainant, allowed the appeal and dismissed the complaint. This has led to the filing of the revision petition.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the impugned order of the State Commission is not sustainable as it has been passed in utter disregard and the law laid-down by the Supreme Court in the matter of Civil Appeal no. 3409 of 2009 (Arising out of SLP (Civil) no. 20902 of 2006) ? National Insurance Company Ltd., vs Nitin Khandelwal as also the judgment of this commission in the matter of United India Insurance Co. Ltd., vs Durga Carriers Pvt. Ltd., - I (2013) CPJ 212 (NC).
7. Learned counsel for the respondent/ opposite party on the contrary has argued in support of the impugned order and submitted that the question whether or not, the delay in intimating the theft to the insurance company is fatal to the claim of the respondent came up before the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the matter of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., vs Parvesh Chander Chadha in Civil Appeal no. 6739 of 2010 arising out of SLP (C ) no. 12741 of 2010 decided on 17.08.2010, wherein the Supreme Court took the view that delay in intimating the theft to the insurance company is fatal to the case of the insured.
8. I have considered the rival contentions. It is admitted that the theft took place on 09.01.2011 but the intimation of theft to the insurance company was given only on 09.02.2011. The issue is as to what is the effect of delay in giving intimation to the insurer. This question came up before the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the matter of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., vs Parvesh Chander Chadha (Supra) wherein the Hon''ble Supreme Court has observed thus:
" Admittedly, the respondent had not informed the appellant about the alleged theft of the insured vehicle till he sent letter dated 22.05.1995 to the Branch Manager. In the complaint filed by him, the respondent did not give any explanation for this unusual delay in informing the appellant about the incident which gave rise to cause for claiming compensation. Before the District Forum, the respondent did not state that he had given copy of the first information report to Rajender Singh Pawar through whom he had insured the car and untraced report prepared by police on 19.09.1995 was given to the said Shri Rajender Singh Pawar, but his explanation was worthless because in terms of the policy, the respondent was required to inform the appellant about the theft of the insured vehicle. It is difficult, if not impossible, to fathom any reason why the respondent, who is said to have lodged First Information Report on 20.01.1995 about the theft of car did not inform the insurance company about the incident. In terms of the policy issued by the appellant, the respondent was duty bound to inform it about the theft of the vehicle immediately after the incident. On account of delayed intimation, the appellant was deprived of its legitimate right to get an inquiry conducted into the alleged theft of vehicle and make an endeavour to recover the same. Unfortunately, all the consumer foras omitted to consider this grave lapse on the part of the respondent and directed the appellant to settle his claim on non-standard basis. In our view the appellant cannot be saddled with the liability to pay compensation to the respondent despite the fact that he had not complied with the terms of the policy."
9. In view of the aforesaid view taken by the Hon''ble Supreme Court, the order of the State Commission cannot be faulted. The petitioner has failed to show any material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order which may call for interference by this Commission in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. Revision petition is therefore, dismissed.
